Republicans, Democrats speak out after classified briefing on deadly boat strikes

Key Concepts

• Second Strike Controversy: The central issue is a controversial second strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean in September.
• Survivors and Narcotics: The strike was ordered after two survivors from an initial attack were seen attempting to re-board the boat and retrieve illegal narcotics.
• Differing Accounts: Lawmakers presented conflicting interpretations of the video footage of the second strike, with some viewing it as a potential war crime and others as a lawful and necessary action.
• Secretary Pete Haggeith's Role: The actions of Defense Secretary Pete Haggeith are under scrutiny, with some lawmakers calling for his resignation due to this incident and the "Signal Gate" report.
• Laws of Armed Conflict: The discussion revolves around whether the strike violated the laws of armed conflict, specifically regarding attacking shipwrecked individuals.
• "Naroterrorists": A term used to describe individuals involved in drug trafficking who are also considered foreign designated terrorist organizations.
• Transparency and Briefings: There is a debate about the need for greater transparency, public release of video footage, and more frequent and thorough briefings for Congress.

Summary of Briefing on Caribbean Drug Trafficking Boat Strike

Background and Initial Strike

Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, a top military official, briefed members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees regarding a controversial second strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean in September. Admiral Bradley stated that he ordered this second strike after it was determined that two survivors from the initial attack were attempting to climb back onto the boat to retrieve illegal narcotics.

Differing Interpretations of the Second Strike

The accounts of what transpired during the second strike, particularly concerning the survivors, varied significantly among the lawmakers present.

• Troubling Accounts: Some members described the video footage as "one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service." They characterized the individuals as being "in clear distress," "without any means of locomotion," and having a "destroyed vessel," yet they were "killed by the United States." This perspective raised concerns about potential violations of the laws of armed conflict, specifically the prohibition against attacking a shipwreck. One lawmaker stated, "Any American who sees the video that I saw will see the United States military attacking shipwrecked sailors."
• Justified Action Accounts: Conversely, other members viewed the survivors' actions as an attempt to "flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight." They argued that the strikes were "righteous strikes" against "naroterrorists who are trafficking drugs that are destined for the United States to kill thousands of our citizens and millions of Americans." This viewpoint emphasized the need to "take the battle to them" and continue striking these boats until cartels learn their lesson.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

The legality and morality of the second strike were central to the discussion.

• Laws of Armed Conflict: The DoD manual's specific example of an impermissible action being the attack of a shipwreck was highlighted. However, proponents of the strike argued that the survivors were not merely shipwrecked but were actively trying to continue their drug trafficking mission.
• "No Quarter" and "Kill Them All" Orders: Admiral Bradley confirmed that there had not been a "kill them all" order nor an order to grant "no quarter."
• Military JAG Opinion: It was stated that a military Judge Advocate General (JAG) confirmed that the second and follow-on strikes were lawful.
• Contextual Factors: Proponents of the strike emphasized the broader context, including the presence of other naroterrorist boats in the area that could have come to their aid to recover their cargo and personnel. They drew parallels to striking a boat off the Somali or Yemeni coast if it still contained terrorists or explosives.
• Non-Combatant Treatment: An example was provided of a subsequent strike where survivors were genuinely shipwrecked and distressed, not attempting to continue their mission, and were treated as non-combatants, being picked up by US forces. This was presented as evidence that the military always obeys the laws of war.

Role of Secretary Pete Haggeith

Defense Secretary Pete Haggeith's involvement and leadership were a significant point of contention.

• Calls for Resignation: Many Democrats are calling for Secretary Haggeith's resignation, citing this incident and the "Signal Gate" report.
• "Signal Gate" Report: This report by the Department of Defense's Inspector General found that some military information could have been jeopardized by the secretary's participation in a signal group chat earlier in the year concerning air strikes in Yemen.
• Republican Support: Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thun, appear to be standing by the secretary, with Thun stating that he "continues to serve at the pleasure of the president."
• Responsibility for the Campaign: Secretary Haggeith is considered responsible for the entire campaign, including the rules of engagement and how it is being carried out.

Transparency and Public Release of Information

There was a strong push for greater transparency regarding the incident.

• Public Release of Video: Several lawmakers advocated for the public release of the video footage, arguing that there was nothing novel or new about releasing such videos, as they have been made and released for 25 years.
• Timeliness of Briefings: Some expressed frustration that Congress was not briefed on the incident until December, despite the strike occurring on September 2nd. They advised that information should be released immediately to prevent controversy.
• Need for Further Briefings: Many believe that additional briefings are necessary, and some feel that no more information is needed from their perspective.

Justification for the Campaign and Rules of Engagement

The broader justification for the campaign against drug traffickers and the associated rules of engagement were questioned.

• "War" Declaration: The President's statement that this is "war" regarding actions with Venezuela was noted as an escalation that Congress would want to be a part of.
• Connecting Narcotics Trafficking to Harm: A key concern raised was how narcotics being trafficked in the eastern Caribbean on the open ocean connects to harming the United States at a level that justifies lethal strikes repeatedly. The question was posed why these particular boats are struck by missiles rather than interdicted by the Coast Guard and DEA agents, with crews interrogated for intelligence.
• Use of Military Capabilities: Concerns were raised about the justification for the entire undertaking and whether it represents the best use of the Navy's and special forces' capabilities.
• Policy vs. Operation: The distinction was made between the operational execution of orders and the larger policy judgments made by the secretary and president.

Future Actions and Investigations

The future of the campaign and potential investigations were discussed.

• Continuation of Strikes: Senator Cotton expects these strikes to continue, and others hope they will.
• Strikes on Land: The possibility of strikes on land was raised, with support expressed if necessary to stop the flow of drugs.
• Congressional Investigations: The possibility of additional hearings and investigations by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees was acknowledged.
• Testimony: There is a desire for Secretary Haggeith to testify, potentially in open session.

Key Statements and Attributions

• Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley: Stated he ordered the second strike after determining survivors were trying to retrieve illegal narcotics.
• Lawmaker 1 (Troubled Account): "What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. Um, you have two individuals in clear distress uh without any means of uh locomotion with a destroyed vessel um who are killed by the United States."
• Lawmaker 2 (Justified Action Account): "I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight."
• Senator Roger Wicker: Believes more members of the House and Senate would like to be briefed on this matter.
• Senator John Thun: Stated the Secretary "continues to serve at the pleasure of the president."
• Senator Cotton: Called the strikes "righteous strikes" and stated they were "entirely lawful and needful." He also stated, "These are naroterrorist foreign designated terrorist organizations who are bringing drugs to our shores that have killed millions of Americans and thousands of our citizens."
• Lawmaker (Questioning Justification): "I have more policy questions than ever about the framing of the mission, the rules of engagement. Um, uh I'm not going to get into the details, but I there were some things that I was briefed on that are reassuring about process, about intelligence, about the role of the JAGs. Um, but more broadly, um what we are asking the men and women of our armed forces and in particularly special forces to do, I think still lacks clear justification."
• Lawmaker (On Transparency): "I think it doesn't do the secretary or our armed forces any service by holding back and not being transparent."
• Lawmaker (On War): "These drug cartels have been waging war against the American people for decades, and we are finally simply joining it. We are."

Conclusion

The briefing revealed a significant divide among lawmakers regarding the September drug trafficking boat strike. While some view the action as a necessary and lawful response to naroterrorism, others express deep concern that it may have violated the laws of armed conflict and constituted a potential war crime. The role of Secretary Haggeith, the justification for the broader campaign, and the need for greater transparency remain central to the ongoing debate and potential investigations. The differing interpretations of the video footage underscore the complexity of applying military force in such scenarios and the critical importance of clear legal frameworks and public accountability.